Redesigning life

I went to a conference last week at the plush London headquarters of The Royal Academy of Engineering. Scientists, sociologists, journalists, artists and ethicists gathered to debate a hot new area of science called synthetic biology.

This 21st century science is both hugely ambitious and very controversial. It involves 'redesigning' the DNA or other fundamental parts of an organism (typically a microbe) to make it produce something useful - like a new medicine or biofuel. Such worthy outcomes might sound attractive. But, given that it involves tinkering with biological systems and possibly creating entirely new forms of life, it's hardly surprising that the RAE and others are concerned about what the public might think...

So to test the waters of public opinion, the RAE carried out a 1000-person telephone survey and an in-depth discussion with 16 people. The results were reported at the conference and, perhaps unexpectedly, they seem to show that the British public are cautiously optimistic about synthetic biology.

63% of participants agreed with the statement 'creating new man-made microorganisms that will produce medicines or biofuels should be supported'. People were also not bothered about the idea of scientists creating entirely artificial new microbes, but they were strongly against the use of animals and plants. Releasing any synthetic microbes into the environment was a no-no too.

So what do you think about synthetic biology and the results of the survey? At the museum we're featuring synthetic biology in our centenary exhibition as an example of future science (see here for details). I'd be really fascinated to hear what people feel about this.